James Raidy

James Raidy, a 54-year-old police call handler from Haslingden, Lancashire, was sentenced at Preston Crown Court for possessing indecent images of children and breaching a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO). The case came to light in May 2024 when officers visited his home and seized a work laptop that he had failed to declare, despite the SHPO requiring him to notify authorities of any new devices within three days.

Upon examination, the laptop contained a category B indecent image and a prohibited image of a child. Raidy, who had a prior history of downloading such material, admitted to viewing 'legitimate' pornography out of boredom, which escalated to accessing these illegal images. He had access to the computer for nearly a year without reporting it to his offender manager, as required under the SHPO imposed due to his previous convictions.

Raidy pleaded guilty to breaching the SHPO, possession of an indecent image, and possession of a prohibited image. During the hearing, Judge Michael Maher criticised Raidy's excuses, stating: 'You had access to this computer for just shy of a year and you quite deliberately failed to disclose to your offender manager that you had access to the device, capable of accessing the internet.' The judge further remarked on Raidy's denial of any sexual interest in children, calling it a 'familiar refrain in these cases,' and highlighted how offenders like him had 'anaesthetised [themselves] to the reality of the fact that these are real children, real flesh and blood children, who have had their childhoods stolen for the sexual gratification of sexual deviants such as yourself.'

A pre-sentence report from the Probation Service assessed Raidy as posing a high risk of serious harm to children, noting that previous sex offender treatment had failed to curb his appetite for such material. Despite this, the judge acknowledged Raidy's ability to channel his energy productively, as evidenced by his paid employment. Raidy was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment for the category B image, with four months concurrently for the prohibited image. Additionally, a new SHPO was imposed for 15 years.

The case was reported by Lancs Live and covered in the Manchester Evening News, underscoring the ongoing challenges in monitoring individuals subject to SHPOs in the UK.